07-20-2010 08:40 AM
The company I'm working for has got two 7500, linked over FCIP. We use both GE ports (ge0 and ge1), a tunnel is configured between the two switches. Only one VE_port is avaliable on each GE ports (i.e. port number 16 for ge0 and 24 for ge1) on each switch. Yesterday, the traffic was balanced on both VE_ports when proceeding a replication.
Today, we reconfigured one of the two switches : the ports number 16 and 24 are now VEx_ports. So now we have two VE_ports connected to two VEx_ports. No problem with the configuration, the LSAN zones are ok. But, when proceeding a replication, the traffic was only through one port (number 16). After proceeding a "portdisable 16", the traffic went through the port number 24.
I wonder if there is something wrong about the routing algorithm that prevent VEx_ports from balancing the traffic. What can I do to balance the traffic on both VEx_ports?
Thanks in advance.
07-20-2010 08:47 AM
why did you do that?is there any specific reason? VE-VE port in FCIP creates a tunnel and merged the routers . That tunnel works like an ISL .If you put fabricshow, you can see the other router in Fabric
Now that you have made it VE-VEX port that means, it is a routed traffic now, not a tunnel anymore.It is not FCIP protocol, This is an example of FCR.
07-21-2010 12:00 AM
Thanks for your answer.
The reason of this procedure was to change the backbone configuration. At the project's begining, the backbone was spread on two sites, with an IP connection between them and a VE-VE configuration. Now, we are extending the backbone to a third site and we don't want the IP route to be part of the backbone fabric anymore (the reason is to avoid the fact that a problem on the IP connection, that is not controled by my team, can affect the backbone). This is why we want to use a VEx-VE configuration and not a VE-VE one.
Do you know if there is any possibility of balancing the traffic with this new configuration?
07-21-2010 12:34 AM
if i try to connect 3 site or more over FCIP (i have mak this for 8 site) i connect all the router as a mesh construct where all ge0 ports are going together and all ge1 port together. i will configure all the ports as VE. The mesh construct will allow the availability in the situation where a path is breaking down. The load balancing is working very good through the VE ports .
07-21-2010 01:21 AM
Thanks for your answer.
We can't use this solution in our architecture. A temporary solution could be :
- We keep both GE ports activated but because of load balancing only one GE port is used (ge0), therefore one VE-VEx connection
- We double the bandwidth on each tunnel (that's possible)
- In case a problem occurs on the ge0 tunnel, the traffic goes through the ge1 tunnel
Too bad for load balancing. Do you have any other suggestion?